Menu

Here is an interesting article taking a stab at the 1950s housewife myth. A few snippets:

1. “The average young woman of the Fifties had one supreme goal in life: to land herself a decent husband. He didn’t have to be devastatingly good-looking or rich. He just had to earn enough money so that she could stay at home, raise the children and never have to work for a living again. The alternative? Being labelled a spinster or old maid, and probably slaving for a lifetime in a low-paid and low-status job.”

I bet also it wasn’t necessary to have biological attraction for him. The goal was clear–security and nothing else. This overemphasis on security leads women to marry men they weren’t attracted to which then leads to the frigid wife who refuses sex, which then may lead to his affairs, which then may lead to divorce, which then still ends in security for her. Oh, the irony! Either way the woman gets what she wants, but to assure a successful marriage for both men and women a focus must be put on biological attraction, not security. If the end goal for women is security, she can’t really play her cards wrong and in that case just marry any average Joe. A successful marriage should be the end goal, not security, and that cannot be arrived at through fabrication, through feigning attraction or trying to convince yourself he is “decent enough” or something “enough”. In the rush for security and fear of being a spinster, the 50s women overlooked much*. They put the cart before the horse.

What has been demonstrated throughout the manosphere is those who married out of biological attraction, lust**, pure passion are the ones that stay together and in turn creates the security. In attempts to make the women not seem so shallow and primal, they try to rationalize why they have such a successful marriage–it’s because of commitment, vows, God, etc., ya know–more noble causes than lust and wanting to tear clothes off.

2. “To find out, I combed hundreds of diaries, newspapers, magazines and academic papers, and asked numerous women to talk to me about their own memories. What soon became clear was that the idealised version of the Fifties marriage often had little in common with the humdrum reality.”

Golly, another woman who actually does research, rather than rely on an image of how she wants it to be. If you truly go digging through history there is a reoccurring theme of female dominance, moral and otherwise since at least the early 1900s. This leads to a point in the article where it mentions Novelist Barbara Cartland claimed, “Man is actually a Neanderthal who has no homing or paternal instincts. Fortunately, he can be reeled in — provided the woman presents herself as beautiful, passive, dependent, inferior and subordinate.”

What have I been saying about wiles? This is exactly it and at the core of traditionalist feminism–that man is this big Neanderthal who can be seduced and controlled by feminine charms. Nothing drives home this point more than this article.

3. “A housewife could expect to find herself liberated from many of the chores that connected her to the outside world. In Woman’s Own, Monica Dickens explained: ‘The instinctive desire of woman is to attach herself to a man who will be her provider.”

The word “liberated” really jumped out here and could it be that this is the bridge that brings common feminism and traditional feminism together; that at its core both seek liberation. Common feminism seeks liberation from the drudgery that is work in the home and traditional feminism seeks liberation from the drudgery that is the workplace. Both are seeking escape. Both are seeking a life in their own personal, idealized garden, wherever that garden is planted. One involves running away from men and the other involves running towards them. Work is their savior or man is their savior from their eternal discontentment.

In sum, women seek security and liberation. This seems counterintuitive, contradictory, but yet not really. Security can be found in being liberated from the home or work place and liberation can found in the security of the home or work place.

* There are even some fractions of the manosphere that encourage the same thing; that women should just hurry up and settle for a “decent enough” man before she “hits the wall” and becomes that dreaded spinster. That a married woman, by the virtue of marriage alone, will in general be happier.

The joke here is that in our modern age greatness is not really measured any further than a web page. How history remembers you is not in your actions or something verifiable but what was recorded about you; stories that can be true or false. What matters is how you appear on Wikipedia, facebook, or a blog.

So, here is my twist on this joke:

“Some women are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them by a white knight/beta orbiter who knows how to use a computer.”

Believe it not, I actually do believe some women are born great and some women do achieve greatness; but alas, lets not forget that other category–women who have greatness thrust upon them based on what certain men want to be true, even if it isn’t verifiable. They believe stories women tell about their life simply because a woman is telling them. Never mind they don’t live with that woman or know her personally. Women are believed for being great simply because they tell the world they are great. The squeaky wheel often gets the oil of greatness thrust upon them, whether it be warranted or not.

Since I learned the hard way you can’t criticize women or call them out when they are wrong or lying, I am left at an impasse of what to do going forward. A big part of me wants to continue calling a spade a spade and pretend like this is manosphere 1.0, circa 2010, but its not–those days are long gone and a PC cloud has settled over.

One reason I don’t write as much any more, is there is no longer freedom to speak my mind without being accused of “stirring the pot”, “catfights” and “jealousy”. There are many things I post that don’t come out with the full spirit I am use to cause I am afraid to say certain things, which then only leads me to believe what is the point of writing if I can’t be me?

The default, safe mode is just continue letting women get away with gross lies, manipulations, and misrepresentations, but at the same time its that fear of questioning women that got us to our current state of feminism today. Certain women, more the jezebel types, want to silence the women who question them. I am leaning more now to just let women continue to get away with their crap, let them keep that mask on, let them keep fooling men with their wiles and coy nature. Maybe men and society deserve them? That certainly is the easy route –isn’t it? Do that rather than stand up for what you believe in, for risking damaging your representation–because when speaking out against these women –they always win and always have a way to spin things to make you look like the crazy one. I am not skilled in battling in them, which really amounts to not being skilled in a spiritual warfare. Will see what the future brings.

“Christian blogger Veronica Partridge inadvertently set off a firestorm last month when she announced her decision to stop wearing yoga pants and leggings in public. As she explained in her follow up post:

These past few weeks have been shocking, to say the least. I have weathered the most hateful comments of my life. People have called me a countless number of names, some I can’t even repeat. Women have talked about my husband with graphic sexuality asking for favors and soliciting their bodies to him.

What Partridge hadn’t anticipated is that by announcing that she was choosing to be more modest she instantly put women who didn’t follow this rule on the wrong side of the good girl/slut line. She poked the anthill and the ants came out stinging. This is true even though she took great pains to explain that this was her personal decision, and not something she expected other women to follow.”

If it was her personal decision, why broadcast it so publically? If she doesn’t expect women to follow, why does the world have to know? Seems a ploy to show off her moral superiority.

Also, what is it that makes the Christian community think women and this particular poor dear, do this sort of thing “inadvertently”? I just see it as a premeditated attention stunt. Because—-OK, so she gives up leggings, but her very beautiful face is still plastered all over the net now in countless articles, not to mention her own blog. Are we to expect men won’t get distracted and lust over that? How can women reject one form of immodesty and then put on full frontal display something equally, if not more distracting? In general, Christian just gloss over all this and instead cheer her on for her courage to fight the culture.

If you really don’t want men to lust, then go full on burqa and at the very least don’t host a blog with photos of yourself. If its the ideas that matter, they should be able to stand on their own merit without photos of yourself. She gave up leggings–big whoop! A more humble spirit would just give them up and go about her life without feeling the need to broadcast her righteousness.

How many Christian men are getting their jollies off right now pining after a married woman for if they could only have a woman like THAT! Not only beautiful, but oh so virtuous.

From Veronica’s own words that Dalrock quoted above doesn’t it sound as if she likes the drama and negative attention her public moral stance brought? She is playing the “poor widdle old me, I’m just trying to save society” card to summon up the white knights and sympathy. Its just all so “shocking”, I’m just being a good Christian! This is an all too familiar song and dance. It used to be said long ago back in manosphere 1.0 days that if a woman doesn’t want to take heat for her personal choices, then don’t share them so publically.

In the end, this is not about leggings and whether they should be worn or not, or cause men to lust or not. What its about is “look at me, look at me, I am good godly Christian girl, please put me on a pedestal”. Leggings are distracting alright; they distract from what is really going on here.

Reading this post prompted a few thoughts. The religious right is good at churning out articles on how divorce is bad because it causes “economic, emotional and psychological hardships” and in general misery and suffering. It is true of course and I don’t dispute that, but on the other hand marriage can also cause “economic, emotional, and psychological hardships” and in general misery and suffering. The difference though is suffering in marriage is a holy endeavor and is not lambasted in the same way the suffering of divorce causes. When you suffer in marriage you are being a real champ and taking up your cross and its even deemed as a good thing that can cause growth, not so in divorce. You are admired for your stamina and endurance if you stay in a miserable marriage. It amounts to a competition of whose suffering is more holy.

Suffering is an unavoidable and necessary aspect of life, but all suffering is not judged the same. Its an inconsistency for Christians to say that divorce is so bad because it causes suffering and then to acknowledge marriage can be so great because it causes suffering, pruning and growth. I suppose though this will all get brushed aside with suffering in marriage is “sanctified suffering” and therefore admirable. Ye who suffers the most in the most sanctified way wins!

Seriously, for all the fussing and perfectionism it takes to create a Norman Rockwell pintastic Christmas wonderland that so many women get caught up in, what is really needed is more turkey-head moments. It is those moments you remember, not the perfect tied bowed and wrapped presents nor the perfectly set table and food. It is good laughs with friends and family, not the Martha Stewart details.

Whether your gifts come out wrapped like this:

or this:

Whether your tree looks like this:

or this:

Whether your green beans are served up like this:

or this:

What matters is that your loved ones are happy and pleased and more often than not husbands and children don’t need or want all the trappings that pinterest, modernity and suzy homemaker guilts us into. Point being, if your man likes sloppy green bean casserole, make him the casserole. If he likes canned crescent rolls, pop open that can. Perish the thought if everything on your table is not entirely from scratch. A table with a few canned items here and there does not make you a feminist nor an unloving, nutritionally negligent wife or mother.

2. That sometimes simply finding the pair to your stocking in your stocking can be the greatest joy.

Truly, sometimes the feeling of finding that missing sock–its better than a present! Point being–finding joy in the little things.

Return of Kings has an article reminding men to Beware the Coming Breed of “Pro-Male” Women. This is a topic I and others have written about in the past and it mostly falls on deaf ears and justly so as no doubt my saying it makes them deaf, so its good to see more men speaking the obvious and not melting into a pile of mush when any female comes along saying all the right things and playing their Game of Appearances.

A few quotes from the author of the article, Ashlar Ben David:

“I believe that men are in a state of deep and painful yearning for true femininity—with all its supportive and healing qualities—and will be fairly easy to trick with a presentation that appears to be what we’ve been looking for.”

Yes, the men are like this:

and they fall all over themselves Believing in Unicorns. Likewise, women are in a deep state of yearning for the masculine and is probably why they fall or I guess you could say get tricked by the “bad boy,” the dominating abusive ones, not the strong dominant, leading ones (and yes, there is a big difference).

“But what all experienced men know is far more likely, is that they got tricked by a woman with better game than them.”

Yes, and the female version of that “better game” is wiles. I’ve said before that dating amounts to “ye who plays the best game wins”. Either one sex or the other will come out in the dominant position in a relationship. Men are being taken aback by feminine beauty, charms, and all the right anti-feminist talking points, much like in the video above and they melt for a sweet song, whether the words to that song are true or not. Just as men have learned “game” women have learned their own version, one that probably predates male game as female game was once billed in years past as “Moral Dominance”. What makes their game sometimes better is they just have being playing it longer and it is now an innate characteristic that fuels the “feminine mystique”.

“I was recently banned for arguing than neither women nor poor men should be allowed to vote, because single women always vote for socialism, and men who can’t get their own shit together should not be passing laws that affect everyone else.

The best part is that the forum was called “A Voice for Men”, and the moderator who banned me was a woman who claimed to be anti-feminist. How are men supposed to find their voice when women decide what men are allowed to say?”

This again is an excellent example of what happens when you succumb to the Philosophy of “Let the Little Woman Do It”. A Voice for Men added women to their team at a very quick pace. They sold their soul to the devil in order to get their message to the mainstream and bringing women on board was the perfect way to do this so they wouldn’t be seen as just a bunch of misogynists. If you give a woman a cookie….if you give a woman attention…if you give a woman a position on your team…next they will want a glass of milk to go with it, or in other words, want to be the team. To think, a man wants to voice his thoughts on a site called “A Voice for Men” and he is shut down by a woman. Truly telling on how so much has changed within the manosphere.

Dear future husband, Here’s a few things You’ll need to know if you wanna be My one and only all my life

Take me on a date I deserve a break And don’t forget the flowers every anniversary ‘Cause if you’ll treat me right I’ll be the perfect wife Buying groceries Buy-buying what you need

You got that 9 to 5 But, baby, so do I So don’t be thinking I’ll be home and baking apple pies I never learned to cook But I can find a hook Sing along with me Sing-sing along with me (hey)

You gotta know how to treat me like a lady Even when I’m acting crazy Tell me everything’s alright

Dear future husband, Here’s a few things you’ll need to know if you wanna be My one and only all my life Dear future husband, If you wanna get that special lovin’ Tell me I’m beautiful each and every night

After every fight Just apologize And maybe then I’ll let you try and rock my body right Even if I was wrong You know I’m never wrong Why disagree? Why, why disagree?

You gotta know how to treat me like a lady Even when I’m acting crazy Tell me everything’s alright

Dear future husband, Here’s a few things You’ll need to know if you wanna be My one and only all my life (hey, baby) Dear future husband, Make time for me Don’t leave me lonely And know we’ll never see your family more than mine

I’ll be sleeping on the left side of the bed (hey) Open doors for me and you might get some kisses Don’t have a dirty mind Just be a classy guy Buy me a ring Buy-buy me a ring, babe

You gotta know how to treat me like a lady Even when I’m acting crazy Tell me everything’s alright

Dear future husband, Here’s a few things You’ll need to know if you wanna be My one and only all my life Dear future husband, If you wanna get that special loving Tell me I’m beautiful each and every night

And tell me exactly why any man would want to sign up for something with so many conditions and stipulations? Treat her like a lady even if she is acting crazy. Sex is withheld as punishment for not apologizing or being told she is beautiful. No other pop song catches so many manosphere talking points so nicely. This even out does Beyoncé.

Truth is all these conditions she has are things women don’t really want. They don’t want flowers every anniversary–that is beta and boring. A woman deep down doesn’t want to be treated like a lady when she is acting crazy, she wants to be put firmly and lovingly in her place. So, a man can still jump through all these hoops only to find out he is still not her one and only. The attitude in this song, promoted by women, sets men up for failure and the invisible hand behind it all wants both sexes to fail, to be alone, and that is what we are getting with men and women both choosing to go their own ways. Songs like this always stem from this assumption that there is a huge pool of dashing men just waiting to be swooped up by one of these classy ladies–that the future husbands will just always be there, a given as sure as death and taxes, waiting to jump at her command. This is not true. At best there will be future relationships or “dear future partner”.

Let’s zero in on that last paragraph. When I dipped my toes into the manosphere five years ago it was a largely a group of men looking to reassert their authority, take back what belongs to them, and not let the “little woman” get her way. This was attractive and something to support from the sidelines; just as men support revivals of femininity from the sidelines. Since that time, there has been a slow fade of men acquiescing to “let the little woman do it” philosophy. They like to talk about authority, about being leaders, but in the safe world of comboxes where postulating theories and hypotheticals seem to be equivalent to gaining real experience.

A Voice for Men (AVfM) is the best example of succumbing to the “let the little woman do it” philosophy. They even admit, “At this point there are far too many women involved in the men’s movement to list even a small fraction of them.” Doesn’t that just say all we need to know? Let the “little women” come in and take over. Note the use of “involved” rather than “support”–a subtle, but big difference. Women were brought in because of a feminized instilled fear of being seen as a “bunch of woman-hating men”. More from AVfM: “…whatever you’ve heard about how the Men’s Human Rights Movement is nothing but a bunch of woman-hating men and obedient servant women is a lie: we are a nonviolent human rights movement, welcome to everybody who shares our values.” What they really are is a “voice for humanity” with a faux masculine bravado where the women directly or indirectly call the shots. There is the saying, “Wolves don’t lose sleep over the opinions of sheep”. AVfM’s need to prove themselves to sheep (i.e. society, women) overtook them.

There are still wolves around in the manosphere but they keep to their own dens, ignore or are indifferent to the silly opinions of women, and especially don’t orbit or pedestal women. Bottom line- I support wolves, not worms. Women don’t want to support feminized men anymore than men want to support masculine women.

Exclaiming “You’re just jealous” to someone you don’t agree with is a long standing tactic, especially amongst women, to shut down debate and attempt to brush someone aside with one fell swoop. Clearly, if someone is jealous, what they say can’t possibly have any merit. Problem solved. Let’s just reframe the topic at hand to make it all about the person they disagree with and their alleged issues.

There is another trend surfacing that falls into the same “shut down debate” camp. That being, the exclamation “your obsessed with me” or “I don’t know why he/she is so obsessed with me”. The purpose here again is to distract the reader that its the other person who has a problem–they are obsessed, they are jealous. Again, reframe the debate.

Those who are deemed obsessed may really be those who observe, who have fine attention to detail and catch inconsistences that the opponent finds uncomfortable. What the person bringing obsessed charges is saying is “you look too closely to what I am saying and see through the BS. I don’t like that, I’m uncomfortable, so you must be made out to be crazed, obsessed person and snuffed out.”

I googled this new trend of “obsessed” accusations and lo and behold there is this clip from the 2005 movie Mean Girls:

Yup, so much can always be brought back to that film and also so much can always be brought back to my Feminization of Rhetoric post. Both tactics are most common amongst women because these are feminine debating styles, but feminized men are just as susceptible. What happens when women are allowed unrestrained in debate forums is a change of debating style to the feminine. The men don’t even realize this is happening because it is so slow and subtle over time. Men who resort to “you’re just jealous” and “you’re obsessed” are debating like Mean Girls, a far cry from the masculine rhetorical art of yesterday.